COVID-19 AND THE DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION OF EDUCATION: THE CASE OF LATVIA AND LITHUANIA

Sandra Trinkūnienė, Loreta Juskaite

Abstract


Educational ecosystem is facing rapid changes due emerging technologies and their rapid penetration to daily use. When the COVID-19 pandemic emerged, it only accelerated many of these trends. Nevertheless, some education systems have been able to adapt to the changing situation and digital transformation more easily than others. Digital competence is essential for learning, work and active participation in society in digital transformation context. Given the pressure of change on existing learning institutions and learning models, ICT offers broad opportunities for developing a different view. In order for digital education actors to adapt to the digital transformation in the education sector, they also need to have the skills needed to use technology effectively. However, there is a lack of computer and technological literacy. In Latvia and Lithuania, about one in three workers has limited or no digital skills, and most STEM vacancies remain unfilled because workers do not have the necessary competencies and are not inclined to study or retrain. The aim of the study is to assess the effect of dynamic capabilities for added value educational outcomes during COVID-19 recession. The results of the study revealed that dynamic capabilities have a direct positive effect on value based education outcomes.

 

 


Keywords


digital transformation, dynamic capabilities, education, e-learning, lifelong learning

Full Text:

PDF

References


Abdelaal, M. H. I., Khater, M., & Zaki, M. (2018). Digital business transformation and strategy: What do we know so far? University of Cambridge.

Amit, R., & Schoemaker, P. J. (1993). Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strategic management journal, 14(1), 33-46.

Arndt, F., & Pierce, L. (2018). The behavioral and evolutionary roots of dynamic capabilities. Industrial and corporate change, 27(2), 413-424.

Augier, M., & Teece, D. J. (2009). Dynamic capabilities and the role of managers in business strategy and economic performance. Organization science, 20(2), 410-421.

Daugule, I., & Kapenieks, A. (2019). Knowledge flow analysis: the quantitative method for knowledge stickiness analysis in online course. Periodicals of Engineering and Natural Sciences, 7(1), 165-171.

ec.europa.eu. (2020). Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/europe-2020-indicators

Entwistle, N. (1988). Motivation and learning strategies. Educational and Child Psychology, 5(3), 5-20.

Entwistle, N., Hanley, M., & Hounsell, D. (1979). Identifying distinctive approaches to studying. Higher education, 8(4), 365-380.

Entwistle, N. J., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. London: Croom Helm.

Entwistle, N., & Tait, H. (1990). Approaches to learning, evaluations of teaching, and preferences for contrasting academic environments. Higher Education, 19(2), 169194.

EU. (2019). “10 trends transforming education as we know it”. Retrieved from https://op.europa.eu/lv/publication-detail/-/publication/227c6186-10d0-11ea-8c1f-01aa75ed71a1/language-en

Henry, P. (2001). E‐learning technology, content and services. Education+ Training.

Katz, L. F., & Goldin, C. D. (2008). The race between education and technology. Cambridge: Harvard university press.

Lee, M. K., Cheung, C. M., & Chen, Z. (2005). Acceptance of Internet-based learning medium: the role of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Information & management, 42(8), 1095

Loonam, J., Eaves, S., Kumar, V., & Parry, G. (2018). Towards digital transformation: Lessons learned from traditional organizations. Strategic Change, 27(2), 101-109.

Mason, G., Holland, D., Liadze, I., O'Mahony, M., Riley, R., & Rincon-Aznar, A. (2014). Macroeconomic benefits of vocational education and training. Cedefop Research Paper, 40.

Matt, C., Hess, T., & Benlian, A. (2015). Digital transformation strategies. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 57(5), 339-343.

NEF. (2017). Retrieved from https://neweconomics.org/2017/09/nef-news-september-2017

OECD. (2020). Webinar 29.10.2020. Digitalisation today: benefits and risks for higher education. Retrieved from https://oecdedutoday.com/oecd-education-webinars/

OECD. (2019). Trends shaping education. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/education/trends-shaping-education-22187049.htm

Petrulytė, A. (1995). Kūrybiškumo ugdymo aktualijos. Vilnius: Leidybos centras.

Ramsden, P., & Entwistle, N. J. (1981). EFFECTS OF ACADEMIC DEPARTMENTS ON STUDENTS'APPROACHES TO STUDYING. British journal of educational psychology, 51(3), 368-383.

Salvato, C., & Vassolo, R. (2018). The sources of dynamism in dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 39(6), 1728-1752.

Schoemaker, P. J., Heaton, S., & Teece, D. (2018). Innovation, dynamic capabilities, and leadership. California Management Review, 61(1), 15-42.

Sebastian, I., Ross, J., Beath, C., Mocker, M., Moloney, K., & Fonstad, N. (2017). How big old companies navigate digital transformation.

Sphoher J. (n.d.). Slideshare. Retrieved from www.slideshare.net/spohrer/t-shaped-people-20130628-v5

Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic management journal, 28(13), 1319-1350.

Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic management journal, 18(7), 509-533.

UNESCO. (I2017). UNESCO Education. Retrieved from www.unesco.org/new/en/education/themes/strengthening-education-systems/quality-framework/desired-outcomes/competencies




DOI: https://doi.org/10.17770/sie2021vol5.6429

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.